Zathalus
Member
They should really redo the benchmarks at 720p, for that authentic PS5 experience."Just get a PC instead."
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Over 90% Players Can’t Run Final Fantasy 16 At 1080p 60 FPS
SweetTooth
Gold Member
*The chosen few
Shifty1897
Member
It's a really good looking game, it's gonna take a powerful machine to run it, especially if you're looking to lock the game to a certain resolution instead of using dynamic resolution scaling, which the game was developed around.
Senua
Gold Member
Shh, let them have their fun bro! Don't ruin their high, god knows they don't have many of em
MikeM
Gold Member
The biggest thing with PC is choice.
Choice of game settings. Choice of upscaling. Choice of hardware. Choice of storefront.
Playing on my PS5 sucks now because I love higher framerates. The lack of ability to tune settings to a desired framerate kills me now on console.
Last edited:
Utherellus
Member
Neither can PS5.
But yea, the game is super heavy for it's meh picture quality.
justiceiro
Marlboro: Other M
Outside of what few handful of influencers made you believe, most PC players have a very humble setup that run things below 30fps with graphics below medium. And that's fine.
SweetTooth
Gold Member
So its about choice then? By this metric anything can be a master race.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
They might not have another $1000 to build that PC
Mister Wolf
Gold Member
You get what you pay for with PC. What kind of performance do these 90% PCs get when using PS5 level settings?
kazuyamishima
Member
They might not have another $1000 to build that PC
Zathalus
Member
To run this at 720p? You certainly don't need anywhere near that much.They might not have another $1000 to build that PC
kazuyamishima
Member
It will be 2030 and people will continue to mention Witcher 3 on Nintendo Switch Lol.
Not a great example.
Mister Wolf
Gold Member
Neither can PS5.
But yea, the game is super heavy for it's meh picture quality.
I bought the game on PS5, saw how shitty the image quality looked, gifted that copy to my friend, and waited for the PC version.
SweetTooth
Gold Member
People tend to "ignore" that PS5 was a $399 console released in 2020!! Also whats with shifting the goalposts to "upscaling and DLSS" Im not opposed to that mind you! But wasn't PC all about bute forcing your way to 4K/60 or 120fps with RT ... etc?
Wasn't you folks angry at PS5Pro reveal despite Sony unveiling a banger of upscaling tech (PSSR)
Closing note: Consoles (by design) will never beat a high end GPU at any given time but we cannot simply discard that they offer one hell of a value for their price and prove to be plenty capable when optimised for.
MMaRsu
Member
Who says they have to? Hogwarts Legacy is like 20$ on Switch RN.
I would assume most people don't purchase these ports full priced.
Also, options.
BlackTron
Member
The Witcher 3 is a great example of why you shouldn't go that far.
Docked
Handheld
- 720p max, 540p lowest
- 30fps with drops
- Settings lower than PC low, select animations missing
- 720p cutscenes, with compression artifacts
- Pop-in more noticeable than PS4 (cutscenes most problematic)
- Textures, sound, LODs (foliage) pared back/compressed
- Water rendering looks good
- NPC count is similar to PS4
- AO, light shafts, motion blur (can be toggled), AA
- Grass doesn’t animate
- 540p max, 810×456 lowest
- 30fps with drops, more drops than docked
Sure there are miracle ports out there... But should you pay full price for a compromised experience?
Nintendo has made it clear that they don't want to compete with Microsoft and Sony. Fine. They're at their best when they stay in their lane anyway. But then consumers shouldn't be expected to pay full price for the gimped ass games. Frankly, this is a post Steam Deck world now, and it can play all of the games pictured with better performance, and you can still take it to the bathroom with you. Playing on the Switch is no longer the only option if you wanted to play these games anywhere but at home.
And who is they? Square Enix? They couldn't even be bothered to put the effort in on their target platform or the next one they wanted to squeeze money from. You think they're going to bend over backwards to cram FF16 into a platform that's 1/10th the power envelope?
What install base? Let's do math. The Witcher 3 sold 700,000 units on Switch. Out of a total of around 28 million across all platforms, that's about 2.5%. At the time of TW3's switch launch, Nintendo had sold 41,670,000 Switches. That makes the attach rate about 1.68%. I don't think the install base was demanding anything. Certainly not a crippled port of an otherwise great game.
Switch 2 has an install base of zero. One of the biggest draws of FF16 was the massive spectacle of its combat. Who is going to want to play a massively gimped version of that? It totally goes against the design philosophy of the game itself.
I don't think Switch 2 would run FF16 as poorly as Switch 1 ran Witcher 3.
Point is they ported the game anyway. All the talk about why it was or wasn't a good idea to do so is wasted space (they did it).
Steam Deck runs the game, just really bad FPS. But it does run. That's a PC version, not a customized console version with Nvidia DLSS hardware we already know is newer and better than Steam Deck with FSR. So you're being very hasty that Switch 2 won't get this game, given we've already seen them dump every FF Switch 1 can possibly run.
Mister Wolf
Gold Member
If PC was all about brute forcing then DLSS wouldn't have been created in the first place. PC first and foremost is about fine grain customization of your gaming experience. Having access to DLSS, the best upscaler in the industry by far, is just one of the many options that's available.
Trilobit
Member
This reaction makes you look ignorant, because the comment on fotomode is 100% accurate.
Last edited:
Hrk69
Gold Member
This reaction makes you look ignorant, because the comment on fotomode is 100% accurate.
Mister Wolf
Gold Member
This reaction makes you look ignorant, because the comment on fotomode is 100% accurate.
Many of these dudes are real hurt they can't afford a decent gaming PC.
owandeseis
Member
Nice, here's how GT7 looks (performance mode)
Played it at launch on PS5 in performance mode so I have a decent idea of what it looks and plays like. Running a 4060Ti 16GB on my rig, playing on a 32" 1440p 165Hz monitor. Settings I tested were 1440p, Medium settings, High textures, AO on, and DLSS/FSR3. Using the FFXVI Fix mod from Nexus. Tested with and without DLSS/FSR3 FG.
I played the intro up through the flashback combat tutorial. Used FRAPS to get min/max/avg of the first flashback Eikon fight segment up until the campfire scene. It's a decently heavy scene.
1440p(DLSS 'Perf'), FG 'off' = 82fps avg, 101fps max, and 48fps min
1440p(DLSS 'Perf), FG 'on' = 105fps avg, 139fps max, and 65fps min
1440p(FSR3 'Balanced'), FG 'off' = 72fps avg, 95fps max, and 42fps min
1440p(FSR3 'Balanced'), FG 'on' = 100fps avg, 133fps max, and 68fps min
Side-by-Side comparison:
The improvement in image quality even at 1440p(DLSS 'Perf')/(FSR3 'Bal') with FG active is easily noticeable. Much smoother gameplay as well. The PS5 version has kind of a flat, washed out look in this scene.
---
Source images:
Unknown Soldier
Member
I hope you have a 4090
Mister Wolf
Gold Member
Yes. 4090 + 5800X3D + 64GB DDR4 @ 3600 mhz.
Unknown Soldier
Member
That's a nice machine! I also have a 5800X3D but I decided to skip the 4090. I'm riding out this cycle with my 3090 until the 5090 comes out
Mister Wolf
Gold Member
When the 6000 series drops I'll finally upgrade from this AM4 motherboard. AM4 was a good run for us AMD CPU users.
SweetTooth
Gold Member
I like how you assumed that every PC built is Nvidia! Poor AMD
Senua
Gold Member
No, I was not angry when the PS5 pro was revealed. This is the problem, you're just speaking in vast generalisations
Bojji
Member
TintoConCasera
I bought a sex doll, but I keep it inflated 100% of the time and use it like a regular wife
Been seeing a lot of this lately, people just can't argue with an individual anymore and have to come up with stuff like "all PC gamers do X thing" or "all console gamers are like this". It's sad and makes for very poor arguments not worthy to engage with.
When I first bought my 4090 a year and a half ago, I was worried that I was just wasting money I could better use elsewhere. Since then though, I have long decided that it was a great purchase. I thought FF16 looked great and performed great, never even realized it does not for most. For pretty much all games I just set it for 4k 60/120 with most things maxxed (not crap like DoF though). I do use DLSS, which I like, but not framegen. Too bad I can't buy a new top end card every cycle (because that is too wasteful for my means).
I very much believe that you should spend money on things you use a lot or enjoy (now anyways). For me, gaming means a reasonably high end PC and display/sound system. I just bought a Purple bed because you spend a significant portion of your life sleeping. If I ever meet my eventual desire of playing a music instrument, I will spend accordingly there as well (within reason, not like I want to buy a stradivarius).
I very much believe that you should spend money on things you use a lot or enjoy (now anyways). For me, gaming means a reasonably high end PC and display/sound system. I just bought a Purple bed because you spend a significant portion of your life sleeping. If I ever meet my eventual desire of playing a music instrument, I will spend accordingly there as well (within reason, not like I want to buy a stradivarius).
SweetTooth
Gold Member
FtfyAnd how many PCs could run it at 1080p 60fps? Oh right, that'd be 1%
Mister Wolf
Gold Member
I like how you assumed that every PC built is Nvidia! Poor AMD
It's the truth. We all know the market share. When it comes to GPUs, AMD are a fart in the wind.
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
Actually, around 10% which probably translates to around 13 million PC...which is incidentally the number of Pros projected to be sold.
Bojji
Member
And we don't even know if Pro will be able to lock this game to native 1080p and 60fps (in theory, it shouldn't).
SweetTooth
Gold Member
Cool to know. Its amazing to me that a $699 console will out perform ~90% of the PC market in a month
Little Mac
Gold Member
Zathalus
Member
That is using the last known monthly Steam users from 2021 mind you, if you follow the CCU trend of Steam the monthly users would be around the 160-200 million mark, depending on if you use the online or in-game number.
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
Most PCs are cheap and serviceable gaming machines. That you need a $5000 behemoth or bust has always been moronic.
Esparadrapo
Neo Member
7800 X3D / 64GB 6400 / RX 7800 XT / Linux (low power limit bug included)
Running around in the castle after the training:
Medium 1080p (no upscaling): Min: ~85 FPS Average: ~110 FPS
Ultra 1080p (no upscaling): Min: ~58 FPS Average: ~80 FPS
Medium 1440p (no upscaling): Min: ~55 FPS Average: ~65 FPS
Ultra 1440p (no upscaling): Min: ~44 FPS Average: ~55 FPS
The game is garbage regarding optimization and even more considering the limited visuals I can see ingame. That said, I don't know what kind of testing Tom's did or if Windows is really becoming that much worse for some games than Linux.
Running around in the castle after the training:
Medium 1080p (no upscaling): Min: ~85 FPS Average: ~110 FPS
Ultra 1080p (no upscaling): Min: ~58 FPS Average: ~80 FPS
Medium 1440p (no upscaling): Min: ~55 FPS Average: ~65 FPS
Ultra 1440p (no upscaling): Min: ~44 FPS Average: ~55 FPS
The game is garbage regarding optimization and even more considering the limited visuals I can see ingame. That said, I don't know what kind of testing Tom's did or if Windows is really becoming that much worse for some games than Linux.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Sure. But the performance is the same on a $399 console as it is on a $539 GPU (not counting all the other components of that PC).
That's the problem.
Hot5pur
Member
Not sure it matters anymore with upscaling tech. Yes, sucks for those still on old GPUs without it, but if you want the latest visuals you have to make some investments.
If a 4070 was required to run it with DLSS turned on and could only hit 60fps at medium, I'd be concerned.
I wonder if GPUs will put a lot more focus on these techniques rather than pushing raw raster power.
If a 4070 was required to run it with DLSS turned on and could only hit 60fps at medium, I'd be concerned.
I wonder if GPUs will put a lot more focus on these techniques rather than pushing raw raster power.